300 So.3d 1205
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2020Background
- Uber (Rasier-DC) and Broward County had a license agreement; Uber provided monthly reports containing aggregate (total pickups and fees) and granular (time/location/partial plate) data marked as trade secrets.
- Yellow Cab requested those reports; Broward County produced redacted reports and declined to disclose trade-secret portions without Uber’s authorization.
- Trial court initially found the redacted information was trade secret and expressly ruled Broward County did not violate the Public Records Act; Yellow Cab moved for rehearing limited to disclosure of aggregate pickup totals and fees.
- On rehearing the court ordered disclosure of aggregate pickups and fees (finding those were not trade secrets) but left the trial court’s original finding that the County did not violate the Public Records Act intact.
- On appeal (Rasier I) this court affirmed that aggregate pickups and fees are not trade secrets; Yellow Cab did not cross-appeal the trial court’s earlier, adverse ruling that Broward County did not violate the Public Records Act.
- After the mandate, Yellow Cab sought attorney’s fees under section 119.12; the trial court denied fees because Yellow Cab waived the challenge by not cross-appealing and because the County’s refusal was based on the trade-secret exemption. This appeal followed and the denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yellow Cab waived its right to challenge the trial court’s ruling that Broward County did not violate the Public Records Act by failing to cross-appeal | Yellow Cab argued it was entitled to fees after appellate decision requiring disclosure of aggregate data | Broward County argued Yellow Cab waived the issue by not cross-appealing the final order that found no Public Records Act violation | Court: Yellow Cab waived the issue by failing to cross-appeal the unfavorable portion of the final order |
| Whether Broward County unlawfully refused the records such that Yellow Cab is entitled to attorney’s fees under §119.12 | Yellow Cab argued the County’s initial refusal was unlawful and fees should be awarded | County argued its refusal was based on the trade-secret exemption and the trial court expressly found no violation; fees require a court finding of unlawful refusal | Court: Fees denied—no unlawful refusal because the unchallenged trial-court finding precludes an award under §119.12 |
Key Cases Cited
- Rasier-DC, LLC v. B&L Service, Inc., 237 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (held aggregate pickups and fees are not trade secrets)
- State Attorney’s Office of Seventeenth Judicial Circuit v. Cable News Network, Inc., 254 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (discusses reasonableness of agency reliance on exemptions)
- Office of State Att’y for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Fla. v. Gonzalez, 953 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (unlawful refusal defined by improper basis for denial)
- Bd. of Trs., Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Lee, 189 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2016) (statutory fees under Public Records Act require trial-court finding of agency violation)
- Mootry v. Bethune-Cookman Univ., Inc., 279 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (failure to cross-appeal waives later challenge to an adverse ruling)
- Wiccan Religious Coop. of Fla., Inc. v. Zingale, 898 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (cross-appeal required to challenge unfavorable portion of a final judgment)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle, 182 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (failure to cross-appeal waives issue in subsequent appeal)